COMBINED CADET FORCE ASSOCIATION Minutes of the Open Board Meeting Held on Tuesday 5th June 2018 at Holderness House London EC2A 4DW Position/Representing Trustees Present: AVM NDA Maddox Chairman (Chairman) Lt Col M Hampshire Vice Chairman Miss JYW Hodgson Honorary Treasurer Lt Col SJ McMenemy Legal and Governance Adviser Mrs A Martin Finance Committee member Lt Col M Godfrey East Anglia Schools Cdr (CCF) RK Gordon RNR Northern Ireland Schools Wg Cdr MH Green VRT South East England Schools Lt Col MZ Hamid Lowland Schools Lt Col S Law West Midlands Schools Wg Cdr DW Montgomery VRT Highland Schools Cdr (CCF) MP Ripley RNR North West and IoM Schools Lt Col NJ Woodall Greater London Schools Lt Cdr (CCF) GS Poulet-Bowden RNR West of England Schools Maj AW Reynolds CEP Schools Maj C Thompson CEP Schools Capt JJ Bleakley CEP Schools Capt SA Davies Wales Schools Co-opted members: Mrs J Taylor ASCL and NAHT Secretariat: Mr R Walton Finance Director (FD) (Secretary) Ms V McBurney Hd of Vol Recruitment & Comms Miss E Leonard CCF Marketing & Comms Officer Mr C Ajayi Executive Assistant Mrs F Meakin CCFA Grants Manager In attendance: Brig (Retd) M Wharmby Army Regional Command Lt Col A Mack Army Regional Command Maj P Green RM RN CCF, FOST Wg Cdr M Larwood-Hughes RAF HQ Air Command Apologies Mr M Mortimer HMC and ISC Maj SW Emmerson Yorkshire and Humberside Schools Capt S Heywood North East Schools Col (Retd) MNS Urquhart CE CCFA Representative MOD RF&C Div Cdr (Retd) GR Bushell Director Cadets & Youth CRFCA Page 1 of 10 Item No Subject Action 1. Welcomes and Introductions. The Chairman introduced the new trustees (Alison Martin, Nigel Woodall and Simon Davies) to the external members. The meeting coincided with the MOD 1 Star Youth & Cadet Steering Group, hence there was no MOD RF& C Div rep and the CE was absent at that meeting. 2. Minutes of previous meeting and matters arising. The minutes of the Open Board Meeting of 3rd October 2017 were distributed prior to the meeting. No comments had been received. Matters arising: Comment Marland Green – concerning the old commission: Believe theAir Cadet Management board were looking into some policy change to do with that commission, but only about how you can use your retired VRT commission. To be taken under the RAF report. Comment Miles Ripley Item 9b: Wondering if there was any feedback on the Red Book Test. Richard Walton (RW) replied that his understanding is that the Red Book Test will become an online part of the Defence Learning Environment; there will be a bank of 50 questions from which the test will be randomly generated. No other comments. 4. MOD report The MOD Cadet Report was circulated prior to the meeting. The Chairman made an observation that contingents are going up but cadet numbers seem to be declining. Mike Wharmby (MW) refuted stating that cadet numbers actually seem to be increasing. The statistics produced by the defence statistics organisation reflect a 3.2% increase in cadets since 1st April 2017 and an increase 6.7% increase in adult CFAVs. MW took the Chairman’s point that cadet numbers ought to go up faster. Bearing in mind that for new schools the first approvals were in August 2016, there is a year to set the school up and there is a progressive recruitment of yearly cohorts. The CCF is being deliberately modest with its expectations in the first two or three years. This isn’t something the MOD can lead on; it is something for schools to lead on. Schools have established places and it is a case of how well they are able to fill those spaces. Aimee Reynolds (AR) commented that the numbers appeared to be suspicious because they were all round numbers, MW responded that these are the numbers from Westminster. AR commented that the requirement for cadet volunteers to fill out things on Westminster for everything is very onerous for schools that possibly have an SSI only one day a week. MW commented further that the information in Westminster is needed Page 2 of 10 firstly so that a school can receive the resources it needs to run CCF activities and secondly so that the CCF can demonstrate to the MOD (and taxpayers) that the allocated funds are being used for legitimate activities and purchases. AM commented that it is very easy to just autofill boxes when it becomes onerous. If Defence wants accurate information then the information requirement cannot be so demanding that it is inaccurate. MW commented that the information that is absolutely needed is: what the event is and who is taking part in the event. The Chairman asked MW to remind trustees how they can link in to these statistics. MW confirmed that the statistics are on the Defence Gateway (published on the 31st May) and can be found through a quick internet search. [Afternote: MW has since provided details about cadet statistics which are at Annex A.] 5a Army report The Army’s Cadet Report was circulated prior to the meeting. 5a(1) CCF Army review of adult volunteer training. MW drew the trustees’ attention to paragraph 5: the review of CCF army adult volunteer training. He was unaware that any systematic defence based review of CCF training had been carried out in the time he had been associated with the CCF. Alistair Mack (AM), SO1 CCF Army HQ RC, sponsored the study and will lead the exploitation of what the study has thrown up. AM explained that exploitation is the second phase of a significant piece of work undertaken by a reserve officer who is a training development advisor. Brigadier Matthew Lowe had endorsed this work. AM handed out sheet of findings to attendees of the meeting. AM explained that the aim is to build relevant capacity within the cadet force adult volunteer community. The first requirement is to build as much competency and linkage between the pre-basic training with the well established basic course run at CTC Frimley Park. As a result of this analysis a refined CCF Basic course will be developed. One of the key recommendations was to include the award of the SA (K) qualification, but there are implications if this two day course is put into the existing four day course. The second phase will be to introduce training for new section commanders (not necessarily a course). AM then moved on to talk about the promotion policy. He stated that the regulations governing promotion are thought to be inappropriate and not fully fit for purpose and would therefore be reviewed. Page 3 of 10 MW commented on this and explained that the process had included the interviewing of 11 contingent commanders, 14 other CCF officers, 4 SSIs, 4 cadet training teams and staff in the RPOC HQs. There was then a comprehensive survey, receiving responses from 137 contingent commanders and 281 other cadet force adult volunteers. This is as good a baseline of the CCF Community’s opinion as Regional Command had hoped for. He rounded up by emphasising the challenges of squeezing in the SA (K) qualification into the CCF Basic course at Frimley. The Chairman asked how this will be mapped out for individuals. How do they bid for the course or qualification? Is it all done for them? MW commented that each CCF Contingent Commander will have a different experience. One of the recommendations in the report is that Regional Command should introduce some form of structured personal development, so that when an individual joins a contingent, the contingent commander can establish what they would like to do in the CCF and what skills they were bringing to it. The contingent commander can then balance that with the needs of the contingent. There should be better availability od training development opportunities to both individual volunteers and also to contingent commanders and SSIs. There are a number of courses that have traditionally been for ACF adult volunteers which would be ideal for CCF volunteers. In summary there is a need to ensure that volunteers can have some development structure mapped out so that they can fit that into their diaries and calendars. Jonathan Bleakley (JB) commented that it might be helpful to have one sheet for new CFAVs highlighting what they have to do to become qualified at the beginning of and subsequent stages of their CCF service. MW recalled an earlier personal development record for the CCF with a comprehensive information pack. Three things happened: the author moved on, people became alarmed at the potential admin burden and then the CCF started to change. He however agreed with the point and thought that Regional Command ought to be able to provide something like that; ideally the information should be provided online so that is instantly accessible and can be continuously updated. Nigel Woodall commented that London District already run a pre-basic portfolio where CCF CFAVs go through the skills required. A M and MW agreed that this is the sort of exploitation that is already ongoing. Dan Montgomery commented that the personal development record should be produced in a format which is understandable, not only in the military world but also to the headmaster or employer so that the employer and the volunteer themselves are confident that the training will be invaluable in that person’s wider career. MW acknowledged the point. Marland Green asked whether this was just for the Army Sections. MW confirmed that this was the case and commented that he understood that Page 4 of 10 HQ RAF Air Cadets has also done a significant review of its CCF training structure.